dittybopper:Monkeyhouse Zendo: When I realized that the primary reason for this issue was fear I figured, why not let them have their security blanket. The risk to my family is minimal while the risk of them or their family shooting themselves or each other in the face is vastly increased.

If by "vastly increased" you mean it goes from being an astronomically small risk, to being a slightly higher astrononimcally small risk, sure. In 2007, there were 613 unintentional firearms deaths. The rate was 0.20 per 100,000, which is roughly 1 per half a million population.

What was the rate per 100,000 of population of gun owners compared to the rate per 100,000 of population of non gun owners?

theknuckler_33:What was the rate per 100,000 of population of gun owners compared to the rate per 100,000 of population of non gun owners?

There's no point in arguing statistics with him. He has the standard mental block that prevents him from recognizing that there may be negative consequences associated with owning a firearm. The fact that he ignored that I'd included suicide in my comment is a clear indication that he's not operating rationally when it comes to this issue.

Monkeyhouse Zendo:theknuckler_33: What was the rate per 100,000 of population of gun owners compared to the rate per 100,000 of population of non gun owners?

There's no point in arguing statistics with him. He has the standard mental block that prevents him from recognizing that there may be negative consequences associated with owning a firearm. The fact that he ignored that I'd included suicide in my comment is a clear indication that he's not operating rationally when it comes to this issue.

You are correct. The risk of a non-firearm owning individual negligently shooting a family member using a firearm that they own is zero. The risk of a firearm owning individual negligently shooting a family member using a firearm that they own is nonzero. Dividing the latter by the former reveals that firearm owners are infinitely more likely than non-firearm owners to shoot family members.

/Similarly, automobile owners are infinitely more likely to be involved in a traffic collision involving a vehicle that they own.

theknuckler_33:It wouldn't ban semiauto rifles themselves, only ones that have "features that allow easy release and replacement of large ammunition clips, either through the push of a button with a finger or use of a tool".

Such a description matches any magazine-fed semi-automatic firearm except firearms manufactured specifically for compliance with such an unreasonable law.

Rifles are less commonly used to commit homicide than are stabbing implements, blunt objects or unarmed attacks. The proposed regulation lacks any rational basis. Only individuals who lack any understanding of firearms technology or individuals whose ultimate goal is total civilian disarmament would support such a regulation.

I'm having a hard time seeing that as a necessary feature for dear hunting.

theknuckler_33:way south: /Obama has been playing things cool. He's not pro gun

In what way is he "not pro gun"?

Because he's said as much, in words.

The federal land carry expansion that he signed was attached to some credit reform that he wanted.He'll say that he is for the 2nd amendment (like any politician will) but he's about as pro gun as Romney was.

Now I can respect that the man has his own opinions on things AS LONG AS he does not push a ban, which he hasn't.He knows that the people who tend to own the most guns (wealthy, older, white, male) don't take a shining to him, but most will tolerate the situation so long as he leaves this issue alone.I believe this is why he's made it a point to avoid the gun debate. Because it allows him to pull more support from the center.

/and people are fine with the status quo./The problem may come with his supreme court appointments, but we'll have to wait and see.

sno man:thomps: "It's mathematically not possible, because the relationship is a negative relationship - they're moving in the opposite direction," Baker said. "So the only thing it could be is that more guns are causing less crime."

well no, it could also be that there is no causation at all, or other factors outweigh a causation between increased gun ownership and gun crime. there are a lot of possibilities here because you aren't doing any actual analysis with the data you were provided.

Up here in Canuckistan where we are a bit more, ahem, conservative about gun ownership crime rates are going down too.

/a curious aside: there were 552 murders in all of Canada in 2010. There were just less than half that in L.A. (one tenthish the population) and/or also in New Orleans (one 100thish)

Compare just black populations and the numbers start to make more sense

And, because homicide and suicide committed with implements other than firearms are perfectly acceptable, the statistic is meaningful.

Yeah. Let's take a moment to consider the UK, and how their gun bans have led to a rash of knife crimes. So of course they responded by cracking down on knives as well, even going so far as to confiscate a bat'leth from a trekkie.That was 5 years ago and I haven't really kept u[p on their progress. Have they started taking peoples' piano wires or fists away yet?

Dimensio:You are correct. The risk of a non-firearm owning individual negligently shooting a family member using a firearm that they own is zero. The risk of a firearm owning individual negligently shooting a family member using a firearm that they own is nonzero. Dividing the latter by the former reveals that firearm owners are infinitely more likely than non-firearm owners to shoot family members.

You don't seem to understand. I'm absolutely on the side of firearm owners but you may be confused by the fact that I have little respect for them or their posturing.

theknuckler_33:It wouldn't ban semiauto rifles themselves, only ones that have "features that allow easy release and replacement of large ammunition clips, either through the push of a button with a finger or use of a tool".

I'm having a hard time seeing that as a necessary feature for dear hunting.

Look at that Remington 740 Woodsmaster: It has a removable magazine, and you can buy or make high capacity magazines for it. You can get 10 rounders commercially, and since it is mostly just stamped sheet metal, making even higher ones wouldn't be much of a chore.

Also, the Remington Model 8 also came in an extended removable magazine version:

Any semiauto rifle that accepts a removable magazine would have to be banned, simply because all it would take to make them illegal is to switch the removable magazine. Thus, the only law that would pass a "rational basis" test would be to ban semiauto rifles with removable magazines. You would be left with only fixed, nonremovable magazines being legal for semiauto rifles.

This of course would be a fools game, because many types of semiauto rifles with nonremovable magazines can have high capacity, and can be loaded quickly using stripper clips. The SKS comes to mind:

And yes, the SKS is used for sporting purposes:

Same exact model of gun with an aftermarket stock, a red-dot scope for hunting, and a lower-capacity non-removable magazine.

It's starting to replace the venerable lever action .30-30 as the "brush gun"* of choice. Hell, even the AK has a sporting version, optimized to be less scary to those who don't know that all the foo-faraw about "assault weapons" is the same as arguing that a spoiler and pin-striping makes a Ford Focus into a 200 mph supercar.

*Generally a "brush gun" in this sense is a carbine length deer rifle with open sights or very low power scope and either semiauto like the Ruger .44 carbine or lever action like the Winchester Model 94, and that uses a lower-power cartridge. Mainly for use in areas with thick vegetation like swamps and deep woods where shots are at short range and possibly need to be taken quickly.

I'm pretty sure that's Obama not being pro-movie-theater-massacre, but I disagree with him on this issue. I think if people want to purchase semiautomatic weapons with little to no regulation or training in their safe use then they should be able to do that. I'll leave it to firearm afficianados to decide when things need to be regulated.

dittybopper:Look at that Remington 740 Woodsmaster: It has a removable magazine, and you can buy or make high capacity magazines for it. You can get 10 rounders commercially, and since it is mostly just stamped sheet metal, making even higher ones wouldn't be much of a chore.

Also, the Remington Model 8 also came in an extended removable magazine version:

Any semiauto rifle that accepts a removable magazine would have to be banned, simply because all it would take to make them illegal is to switch the removable magazine. Thus, the only law that would pass a "rational basis" test would be to ban semiauto rifles with removable magazines. You would be left with only fixed, nonremovable magazines being legal for semiauto rifles.

Which is precisely why I now disagree with regulations on magazine capacity. If a deer hunter thinks a fifty round magazine is going to help him get that buck when he can't take it down with ten then who am I to tell him he can't use one?

As a liberal I think it's high time we just walked away from this issue altogether. Conservatives are so driven by fear that we're going to take their guns away that they will oppose even the most common-sense regulation. I think the solution is to allow them to regulate or deregulate firearm ownership and operation to whatever degree they want. Only when they've gotten over their fear will they start to look around and realize things may have gotten a little out of hand and start considering rational regulation.

dittybopper:theknuckler_33: DrRatchet: FishStampede: But seriously...do liberals even argue for gun control anymore?

In California they do

"a bill that would prohibit semiautomatic rifles or kits with features that allow easy release and replacement of large ammunition clips, either through the push of a button with a finger or use of a tool."

Those BASTARDS!!!!

Well, yeah, because semiautomatic rifles are used by a lot of sportsman, for deer hunting, etc. Here are a couple semiautomatic rifles traditionally used for hunting, that would end up being banned:

[mauser98.com image 850x261]

Classic Remington Model 8

[www.gunlistings.org image 495x330]

Remington Model 740 Woodsmaster

Along with a bunch of others, any ban on semiauto rifles would include those guns.

But hey, it's all about "weapons of war", right?

Fark it. I say we ban anything that uses an explosive charge to perform work.

You can buy the gun. No bullets though. Also no internal combustion engines. But it is a small price to pay to legitimize the NRA! Get this bill to the floor, STAT and get that sweet donor money rolling through those kooky gun lovers.

Monkeyhouse Zendo:theknuckler_33: What was the rate per 100,000 of population of gun owners compared to the rate per 100,000 of population of non gun owners?

There's no point in arguing statistics with him. He has the standard mental block that prevents him from recognizing that there may be negative consequences associated with owning a firearm. The fact that he ignored that I'd included suicide in my comment is a clear indication that he's not operating rationally when it comes to this issue.

Oh, there are potentially negative consequences to owning a firearm. No rational person disputes that.

I'm just saying that the added risk of accidental death due to owning them is so small that it can been effectively ignored, because other things dwarf them by comparison. Like owning a car: That same year, 2007, there were 43,945 accidental motor vehicle deaths, for a rate of 14.57 per 100,000. Yet I own a car, and in fact drive one every day.

There were 29,846 accidental poisoning deaths that same year, for a rate of 9.90 per 100,000. Yet I still keep poisons around the house.

Hell, there are more deaths due to *BICYCLE* accidents than guns (820 in 2007, rate 0,27 per 100,000), yet I still let the littlebopper ride his bicycle.

I'm not cavalier about the dangers of guns. If anything, I have more respect for them, because I know that they can kill, having killed many things with them personally. What I am *NOT*, however, is worried about the "extra risk" of accidentally being killed by firearms simply because I own them, because even *IF* nobody who owned guns ever got accidentally killed by them, and only those who own guns did, the rate would still be less than 1 per 100,000. I'd have a greater chance of being killed just walking down the street (pedestrian deaths: 5,958, rate 1.98 per 100,000).

dittybopper:I'm just saying that the added risk of accidental death due to owning them is so small that it can been effectively ignored

I'm not arguing with you but I would like to point out that I didn't specify "accidental". You're attempting to split hairs to minimize total negative outcomes.

Understand that I'm willing to accept any and all negative outcomes associated with allowing the right to set to agenda with respect to firearm ownership and operation but I don't think we need to sugarcoat it.

Someone committing a violent crime isn't thinking about the fact that gun sales have increased when committing their crime, so no, the increase gun sale has nothing to do with the NATIONAL trend of violent crime going down. Matter of fact if the US could pass a law that issues a gun to every person over the age of 14, citizen or non-citizen, resident or someone visiting on a visa, you'll still have violent crimes involving guns, people will still kill people.

At the end of the day getting rid of guns won't stop violent crime involving guns nor will arming yourself make you any safer from being gunned down because 8 times out of 10 the person getting shot didn't know it was coming.

Monkeyhouse Zendo:dittybopper: Look at that Remington 740 Woodsmaster: It has a removable magazine, and you can buy or make high capacity magazines for it. You can get 10 rounders commercially, and since it is mostly just stamped sheet metal, making even higher ones wouldn't be much of a chore.

Also, the Remington Model 8 also came in an extended removable magazine version:

Any semiauto rifle that accepts a removable magazine would have to be banned, simply because all it would take to make them illegal is to switch the removable magazine. Thus, the only law that would pass a "rational basis" test would be to ban semiauto rifles with removable magazines. You would be left with only fixed, nonremovable magazines being legal for semiauto rifles.

Which is precisely why I now disagree with regulations on magazine capacity. If a deer hunter thinks a fifty round magazine is going to help him get that buck when he can't take it down with ten then who am I to tell him he can't use one?

Typically, "high-capacity" magazines are used by target shooters or -- more frequently -- as "novelty" items due to reliability concerns. Many states already regulate magazine capacity used when hunting.

Monkeyhouse Zendo:dittybopper: I'm just saying that the added risk of accidental death due to owning them is so small that it can been effectively ignored

I'm not arguing with you but I would like to point out that I didn't specify "accidental". You're attempting to split hairs to minimize total negative outcomes.

Understand that I'm willing to accept any and all negative outcomes associated with allowing the right to set to agenda with respect to firearm ownership and operation but I don't think we need to sugarcoat it.

OK. So what is my personal risk of being killed by homicide with a gun?

That's a bit more than half the overall firearm homicide rate in the US (4.19 per 100,000), and less than half for all homicide causes (6.09 per 100,000).

Suicide rate is higher, of course, but that shouldn't count: The decision to end one's life is the last true decision any of us can make, and I judge that my risk of suicide is zero. I may be killed by someone else (but almost certainly not with one of my own guns, which makes the argument about gun ownership and homicide largely irrelevant), and I may be killed accidentally, but I'm most assuredly not going to kill myself intentionally.

dennysgod:At the end of the day getting rid of guns won't stop violent crime involving guns nor will arming yourself make you any safer from being gunned down because 8 times out of 10 the person getting shot didn't know it was coming.

A cite for that statistic, please.

But even assuming it to be true, you've said that 20% of the time a gun could be of use. That's a significant percentage.

Dimensio:Typically, "high-capacity" magazines are used by target shooters or -- more frequently -- as "novelty" items due to reliability concerns. Many states already regulate magazine capacity used when hunting.

Well if you ever decide you want to overturn those regulations you can count on my support.

dittybopper:OK. So what is my personal risk of being killed by homicide with a gun?

Why are you arguing with me? I've ceded the issue to you and I'm not even asking you to justify anything. The right absolutely has my support with respect to any regulation of deregulation of firearms that they want to enact.

You keep throwing out these statistics as if I were interested in some sort of justification from you. I'm not. With the exception of hunters, I think you're a bunch of frightened fools but if owning firearms makes you feel better then I'm not going to stand between you and your security blanket.

Monkeyhouse Zendo:Why are you arguing with me? I've ceded the issue to you and I'm not even asking you to justify anything. The right absolutely has my support with respect to any regulation or deregulation of firearms that they want to enact.

Monkeyhouse Zendo:dittybopper: OK. So what is my personal risk of being killed by homicide with a gun?

Why are you arguing with me? I've ceded the issue to you and I'm not even asking you to justify anything. The right absolutely has my support with respect to any regulation of deregulation of firearms that they want to enact.

You keep throwing out these statistics as if I were interested in some sort of justification from you. I'm not. With the exception of hunters, I think you're a bunch of frightened fools but if owning firearms makes you feel better then I'm not going to stand between you and your security blanket.

Would it surprise you to learn that the only modern guns I own are a couple of bolt-action hunting rifles?

As in Japan, our aging population has meant dropping crime rates - everywhere in the industrialized West. When the Boomers die, society will trend young again - and, guess what? In the meantime, though, we have to listen to every idiot who has a theory about crime prevention claim success. We'll have to listen to another ten-fifteen years of it, at least.

But seriously...do liberals even argue for gun control anymore? It seems like conservatives are just screaming at a wall here, since I don't hear any liberals who have not personally been shot by a crazed gunman coming out against responsible gun ownership.

/member of my local Liberal Gun Club

This and this!

Keep farking that chicken nut jobs, making the rest of us look bad and keeping the price of ammo up, just like the NRA and Gun Manufactures want it to be.

dittybopper:theknuckler_33: It wouldn't ban semiauto rifles themselves, only ones that have "features that allow easy release and replacement of large ammunition clips, either through the push of a button with a finger or use of a tool".

I'm having a hard time seeing that as a necessary feature for dear hunting.

Look at that Remington 740 Woodsmaster: It has a removable magazine, and you can buy or make high capacity magazines for it. You can get 10 rounders commercially, and since it is mostly just stamped sheet metal, making even higher ones wouldn't be much of a chore.

Also, the Remington Model 8 also came in an extended removable magazine version:

Any semiauto rifle that accepts a removable magazine would have to be banned, simply because all it would take to make them illegal is to switch the removable magazine. Thus, the only law that would pass a "rational basis" test would be to ban semiauto rifles with removable magazines. You would be left with only fixed, nonremovable magazines being legal for semiauto rifles.

This of course would be a fools game, because many types of semiauto rifles with nonremovable magazines can have high capacity, and can be loaded quickly using stripper clips. The SKS comes to mind:

And yes, the SKS is used for sporting purposes:

Same exact model of gun with an aftermarket stock, a red-dot scope for hunting, and a lower-capacity non-removable magazine.

It's starting to replace the venerable lever action .30-30 as the "brush gun"* of choice. Hell, even the AK has a sporting version, optimized to be less scary to those who don't know that all the foo-faraw about "assault weapons" is the same as arguing that a spoiler and pin-striping makes a Ford Focus into a 200 mph supercar.

*Generally a "brush gun" in this sense is a carbine length deer rifle with open sights or very low power scope and either semiauto like the Ruger .44 carbine or lever action like the Winchester Model 94, and that uses a lower-power cartridge. Mainly for use in areas with thick vegetation like swamps and deep woods where shots are at short range and possibly need to be taken quickly.

SKS is a a great example, especially when you show the "scary" version that makes people freak. They won't admit it, but they can't come up with rational categories to ban, so it becomes about looks and nothing more.

My SKS is a great gun, and is perfectly acceptable as a gun for the range.

In 2011, violent crime in the US was at a more than 40 year low, with one violent crime for every 259 people.Murders alone were down to one for every 21,324 people compared to 1 per 11,598 in 1971.Source

b>Summoner101: And yet because of our media, many Americans think crime is at an all time high.

/USA! USA! USA!

It's not just the US. Across the Western world, over the past several decades, news media has steadily increased its coverage of violent crime, creating a general impression that crime is always on the rise, making populations increasingly concerned and demanding action, while crime figures have been quietly falling.It's an absurd and potentially politically dangerous development, but before everybody blames the media, it's worth keeping in mind that their growing focus on violence and sensationalism is a result of increased competition for readers and advertising money. News media has always pandered to its readership to some extent, and the harder it is to survive, less time will be spend on costly investigative reporting and wordy features providing insight to complex backgrounds and perspective for current events, and more on the latest thrilling crime. They're just giving people what they want. Apparently people want to be scared.

LavenderWolf:Mikey1969: jaytkay: Mikey1969: Big deal, look at the rash of school attacks in China and couple of years ago, something like 38 kids murdered, no guns at all. All knives and one sword, I believe

Damn.

I mean we have weekly incidents in the US where guys kill their families.

But 38 in China? Has their economy recovered?

Yeah, because that was the point. You know what the point is, so I'm not going to re-state it.

No, you clearly don't understand.

There were FAR FEWER HOMICIDES. They didn't just find other ways. What the fark is wrong with your reading comprehension?

See, here's the part I find interesting. I'm on my phone, so I can't post a link correctly, but this can easily be Googled under 'china school stabbing'. I was trying to estimate the numbers from memory last night, but the final numbers are 21 dead and 90 injured. There were 7 or 8 attacks, all in schools, some in kindergartens.

What I find interesting is that if there is a single attack in the US with a single death or injury, we get 3 weeks of debate about whether guns should be illegal. Since this runs counter to the 'Guns are bad, mmmmmkay?' argument, suddenly the 21 children's deaths and the 90 injuries don't matter to you people. This actually doesn't surprise me in the least. Violent death only matters to you when it supports your narrative. How pathetic.

MY point, on the other hand, still stands. Take away the guns, and people still kill other people for no reason.

Don't worry, I don't expect anyone here to provide a good rebuttal or anything, you'll call me names, tell me that I'm stupid, yadda, yadda, yadda, but this is the point I set out to make, and you guys actually gave me more to argue with when you showed that it's not the deaths that matter, just how they died, and I thank you for that.

jso2897:As in Japan, our aging population has meant dropping crime rates - everywhere in the industrialized West. When the Boomers die, society will trend young again - and, guess what? In the meantime, though, we have to listen to every idiot who has a theory about crime prevention claim success. We'll have to listen to another ten-fifteen years of it, at least.[i18.photobucket.com image 384x400]

I guess we'll also have to listen to people who think dropping crime rates have one single cause.

President Merkin Muffley:Moosecakes: dustman81: Let's look at Kennesaw, GA. A town where gun ownership isn't just encouraged, it's the law.

Named in 2007 as Family Circle's "10 best towns for families".

In 2008, Kennesaw recorded 31 violent crimes, as compared to 127 in Dalton and 188 in Hinesville. 555 property crimes were recorded as compared to 1,124 in Dalton and 1,802 in Hinesville. (From the Financial Times)

President Merkin Muffley: dustman81: Let's look at Kennesaw, GA. A town where gun ownership isn't just encouraged, it's the law.

Named in 2007 as Family Circle's "10 best towns for families".

In 2008, Kennesaw recorded 31 violent crimes, as compared to 127 in Dalton and 188 in Hinesville. 555 property crimes were recorded as compared to 1,124 in Dalton and 1,802 in Hinesville. (From the Financial Times)

I'll bite. What are the populations of each town and the crimes as a percentage of those populations.

Dustman81 will deliver, let's just wait.

I checked it out, and they're actually comparable. However, they're in completely different parts of the state, and have completely different demographics.

Goodfella:If liberals just forgot about this stupid gun control wedge issue (their version of the right wing's flag burning amendment) and embraced firearms they would rob the GOP of one of the only remaining legs they have to stand on. It would be like kicking them in the nuts.

In real life (as opposed to on Fark), I haven't heard liberals talking about the need for gun control for a long time. I did hear conservatives claiming that Obama was going to take their guns if re-elected, though. I don't think this is really a wedge issue except on political opinion sites, where statistics like the ones in the headline are used to manufacture controversy.

Hardly surprising, its not as if there are enough people living there that there's a chance you might actually hit someone. Their most populated city is little more than a few streetlights and a starbucks. If it weren't for the air force base Cheyenne would be a ghost town.

MacWizard:Goodfella: If liberals just forgot about this stupid gun control wedge issue (their version of the right wing's flag burning amendment) and embraced firearms they would rob the GOP of one of the only remaining legs they have to stand on. It would be like kicking them in the nuts.

In real life (as opposed to on Fark), I haven't heard liberals talking about the need for gun control for a long time. I did hear conservatives claiming that Obama was going to take their guns if re-elected, though. I don't think this is really a wedge issue except on political opinion sites, where statistics like the ones in the headline are used to manufacture controversy.